While some prosecutors do their job honestly and stand for justice, there are others who are responsible for intentionally wrongfully convicting innocent people. And as if that weren't enough, they do whatever is necessary to maintain these false convictions.
For many of us, as the sole black person in class, we are called upon to represent our race's view on the atrocities that occurred in the past, cringing as we try to articulate a water-downed version from a chapter of a history book. Yet, we are expected to be grateful for that seat and not fight for others.
The Supreme Court has ended the most blatant forms of gerrymandering and required legislative districts at both the state and federal level to be equal in composition within each state. The Court's rulings have been labeled "one person, one-vote," and the general assumption has been that, in dividing up each house by districts, the denominator has been the total population of the state.
Even though the first 50 years of the 20th century were pretty barbaric due to two extremely bloody world wars, I still believe the arc of history bends towards progress and the pace has accelerated in the last 50 years.
In the ephemeral world of queer nightlife, it's rare to find a constant and important figure. Mario Diaz, who first made a name for himself back in 90s New York City with his take on what nightlife could be, is just such a person.
I think of the Big "C" Church as the institution with the rules, regulations, denominations, culture, and the overall organization that may turn people off from the idea of an organized religion such as Christianity.
It's almost too incredible to believe: it took under 50 years for us to go from the Stonewall Riots, the foundation of the modern LGBT equality movement, to national marriage equality. How did that happen -- and who's responsible?
Over the 40-plus years since the Clay v. United States ruling was handed down, public opinion of Ali has been overwhelmingly positive. In fact, information that paints him in a negative light is fairly difficult to come by.
Simply put, Scalia's hyper-dramatic antics and fulminations signify the demise of the foundational legal principles he has championed throughout his extensive career: the theories of "originalism" and "textualism."
Tired of facts? Do you think all the concern about climate change is just a bunch of hooey? Then this newscast is for you.
It would have been difficult, after the 2014 elections, to imagine that President Barack Obama could achieve much of anything in his last two years in office. After all, the opposition Republican Party had taken control of both houses of Congress in the midterm elections in 2014. The Supreme Court, led by the right-leaning Chief Justice John Roberts, maintained a narrow conservative majority. And the president's approval rating had dropped below 50 percent. And yet here we are, only a few months after the new Congress took up residence on Capitol Hill, with a suddenly resurgent president. Just in the last few weeks, President Obama has been scoring a surprising number of domestic and foreign policy victories. His critics are cowed. The president reached a 50 percent public approval rating for the first time since May 2013.
Has the court under the leadership of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. lost its ideological marbles and, gasp, turned liberal? That's the billion-dollar question observers of the high tribunal are asking in the wake of the tumultuous October 2014 term.
When Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, it recognized that federal resources should be expended to maximize efforts that keep our country safe. To do so, Congress directed the executive branch to determine who is a priority for deportation, and who is not.
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) will have no effect on the proposed Clean Power Plan, according to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
Despite the Supreme Court's decision to make same-sex marriage legal, many employers are deciding to continue offering benefits to unmarried domestic partners. They see providing benefits--to both same- and opposite-sex domestic partners--as a way to ensure employees and their loved ones are happy and healthy.
Of course, Justice Scalia is correct that failure to understand any such contemporaneous meanings of these terms would lead a modern reader to misinterpret what Queen Anne may have said. However, on its face, this example does not apply to the interpretation and application of an ongoing legal rule.